somebody twitter trolling jimmy connors on his 109 titles

KG1965

Legend
This very aggressive twitter makes me think:
1) many fans of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were in the past very aggressive against the two rivals, against all opponents and all the old champions;
2) now it seems to me that the situation has improved even if areas of shadow remain
3) Federer is probably the GOAT, Nadal and Djokovic among the best of all time, there is no need to discredit others
4) many titles of Connors are weak, ... but it is true that many titles won were not sanctioned by ATP.;)
5) the responsibility of this specific case IMO is above all of the media that have not adequately translated the past (the 70s and 80s are not as difficult as the 50s and 60s, and before that ...).
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
This very aggressive twitter makes me think:
1) many fans of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were in the past very aggressive against the two rivals, against all opponents and all the old champions;
2) now it seems to me that the situation has improved even if areas of shadow remain
3) Federer is probably the GOAT, Nadal and Djokovic among the best of all time, there is no need to discredit others
4) many titles of Connors are week, ... but it is true that many titles won were not sanctioned by ATP.;)
5) the responsibility of this specific case IMO is above all of the media that have not adequately translated the past (the 70s and 80s are not as difficult as the 50s and 60s, and before that ...).
The 109 titles are all approved by the ATP , an additional 40 were not sanctioned
 

KG1965

Legend
The 109 titles are all approved by the ATP , an additional 40 were not sanctioned
Certainly timnz; in my point 4) I just wanted to say that twitter has a reason, and that is that many of Connors's titles are weak, ... but we must not forget that the american (like Mac, Borg and Lendl) also won other titles not sanctioned by ATP.

This means that surely some of the sanctioned ATP tournaments and some sanctioned tournaments are weak tournaments, but it does not seem correct to me to say that half of those ATPs won are poor, and also excludes all those not sanctioned. Comic film comes out.

Obviously a person reasons as he believes.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
anyone can easily read down the list of 109 wins, who the opponent was in each case , and make their own judgments...if the feat was "exceptionally overrated" then I would've expected someone else to hit 100 wins a long time ago! JC played during a very competitive period against guys like Borg, Mac and Lendl....and others....all the way through the early Sampras years.
 
Last edited:

WCT

Semi-Pro
I looked at that link. Nadal has won 11 doubles titles? Although I hardly follow doubles anymore I'm still surprised. While not nearly as close as I did singles, I followed doubles somewhat when Lendl played. And I would have never guessed that he won 6. Sure looks like noone else combined Mcenroe's excellence in both.
 

fezer

Rookie
Connors certainly belongs to the atgs in tennis. Wilander and Becker were not mentioned among the opponents. for a reason?
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
hard to overrate connors. didn't have the biggest serve, or groundstrokes, or net game, but knew how to put it all together and just...win, man. just have to watch some highlights to know the guy was special.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
hard to overrate connors. didn't have the biggest serve, or groundstrokes, or net game, but knew how to put it all together and just...win, man. just have to watch some highlights to know the guy was special.
he is under-rated, if anything. His impact on tennis in the US was huge and cross generational. His groundies were pretty darn good...until Agassi came a long, probably the best among the US players. He was something of an opportunistic all-court player....with excellent court sense, timing, etc. Very unique. And very fun to watch, as most fans know. Love him or hate him. He was rarely boring.
 

timnz

Legend
He never did beat them?
The ironic thing is that Connors never beat Wilander in official play, but almost always beat Wilander in non-sanctioned tournaments. H2H for Connors against Becker is 0-6. One has to take into account that their very first match was when Connors was 34.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.

i thought this was amusing how someone had the boldness to tag jimmy connors
and connors retweeted and responded... lol


what a fool this NN! Connors and Mcenroe, unlike Kyrgios and his every daily drama, won big titles (grand slams, The Masters, the precursor tournaments of the Master 1000 of today, WCT Finals and they were number 1 in the world.
They deserve respect at least for their integrity for the sport.
Connors in five!.
 

Rosstour

Legend
hard to overrate connors. didn't have the biggest serve, or groundstrokes, or net game, but knew how to put it all together and just...win, man. just have to watch some highlights to know the guy was special.
he is under-rated, if anything. His impact on tennis in the US was huge and cross generational. His groundies were pretty darn good...until Agassi came a long, probably the best among the US players. He was something of an opportunistic all-court player....with excellent court sense, timing, etc. Very unique. And very fun to watch, as most fans know. Love him or hate him. He was rarely boring.
The epitome of "Winning Ugly." Perhaps the mentally toughest player ever? Hustler/Trickster/Intimidator supreme.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
How many ATP titles does that pansy Bearded Man have? What a disrespectful POS.

Jimmy earned his 109 titles. He didn’t get them in a Cracker Jack box. Records are always earned. Any type of manipulation of numbers is just an agenda.

Jimmy is the Open Era champ for titles. It’s also super cool that he had enough in the tank to make a slam semi at age 39. I don’t think that Federer can match that one, despite the advantages today in nutrition, training, surfers, etc.

Jimmy is a legend. Let’s leave it at that.
 

BorgCash

Legend
How many ATP titles does that pansy Bearded Man have? What a disrespectful POS.

Jimmy earned his 109 titles. He didn’t get them in a Cracker Jack box. Records are always earned. Any type of manipulation of numbers is just an agenda.

Jimmy is the Open Era champ for titles. It’s also super cool that he had enough in the tank to make a slam semi at age 39. I don’t think that Federer can match that one, despite the advantages today in nutrition, training, surfers, etc.

Jimmy is a legend. Let’s leave it at that.
This Bearded Man is just one of those idiots who try to let down other people achievements because they don't have their own ones.
 

WCT

Semi-Pro
I don't know about winning ugly. That is not how I would describe prime Connors. He did not win by attrition. He was forceful and attacking. He won points, he didn't wait for the other player to miss. That's my idea of winning ugly.

Thing is, he didn't even win 109 as a result of hanging around so long. He had 105 at 32 and a couple months old. He only won 4 more titles after 1984.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
I don't know about winning ugly. That is not how I would describe prime Connors. He did not win by attrition. He was forceful and attacking. He won points, he didn't wait for the other player to miss. That's my idea of winning ugly.

Thing is, he didn't even win 109 as a result of hanging around so long. He had 105 at 32 and a couple months old. He only won 4 more titles after 1984.
Yes, remember he went through that extended drought for 4 years? It was something like 12 finals...it was a little bizarre. I know there were some injuries too, but when he lost a final to someone like Christo Van Rensburg, you really had to wonder what was up in his head. He lost a few very close ones...to Becker at Queens, Wilander in Miami, that I think a younger, more confident Connors would have won. Still, was nice to see him get a few more wins in the column at the end of the 80's...one of which was over Mac. Winning ugly isn't the right description, I agree....but he was very persistent, turning what looked like losses into wins, in sometimes dramatic fashion. At his best, yes, he was applying pressure and attacking, whenever he could.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
The amusing part of this is there is a fair dose of core truth to Beareded Man's tweet. In the early years Connors was playing tons of tournaments where he was the only top 20 player and almost everyone else were basically nobodies. Some were way worse with no-one else in the top 50 playing - Roanoke 1973 for example. He was #10 and nobody else was ranked in the top 50 and the best-ranked person he played was #77.

And for an idea of the amount of tournaments he sometimes played - he often played 6 tournaments in Jan/Feb alone in some seasons.

Some tournaments he won were 4 person-draws and he still got a bye to the final (Roanoke - 1972). I'd hazard a guess that at least a third of his career tournament wins were at events with 16 person draws (or less). For Federer it's probably none, or less than a handful at worst.

Some notable examples of his titles. And this is a quick look, not a complete list by any means. Not until 1976 did he really have genuine, ongoing competition from similar-age peers. He had already amassed 41 titles by that stage and he was only 23 years old. At the same age Federer had 8 titles.

- 1974 Australian Open title - highest ranked player he played was #29. The others were 49, 90, 155, 195. (This makes Nadal's 2017 US Open look like a tough draw.)

- 1974 Salt Lake City title - highest ranked player he played was #135... the others were 155, 239.

- 1974 Manchester title (#2 at the time) - highest ranked player he played was #63. The others were 285 and unranked (Mike Collins whose career peak was #793).

- 1975 Bahamas - (#1 at the time) - highest ranked player #50. The others were 66, 150, 168.

- 1975 Boca Raton (#1 at the time) - highest ranked player #50. The others were, 66, 88, 103, 108

*just saying* - no need to be butthurt if you love Connors but comparing his and Federer's titles is not comparing apples with apples in a great many cases.
 

WCT

Semi-Pro
A third had fields of 16? Seems awfully high to me. 36 of his titles were with fields of 16 or less? I think I'd take that bet. He did win a bunch on Riordan's tour and I could see some of them having smaller draws, but that's gone by what, 1976? I'll have to take a look. Maybe I'm wrong. I followed this guy awfully closely, though, and a third seems awfully high.

I know 2 for sure. The 2 in Dallas. Were these 16 draws or 32 with a bye in the 1st round? I can't say I specifically remember that happening with 32 draws. But I think it happened with 64 draws like Philadelphia used to have. He might get a bye in the 1st round and only win 5 matches.

Again, 36? I'd be shocked if it was that high. Been a long time since he played. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. No dispute that Riordan's tour wasn't the best fields. Still, guy won 109 and I know a lot of them had reasonably strong fields.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
A third had fields of 16? Seems awfully high to me. 36 of his titles were with fields of 16 or less? I think I'd take that bet. He did win a bunch on Riordan's tour and I could see some of them having smaller draws, but that's gone by what, 1976? I'll have to take a look. Maybe I'm wrong. I followed this guy awfully closely, though, and a third seems awfully high.
He played in like 4 or 5 per year for the first 4 years of his career. Would have to go back and look at how many he won but you can see the draw size on the ATP website. There's tons, especially earlier in his career.
 

WCT

Semi-Pro
I looked at the site. Went through 1976 and I think I have counted 16. Some of them were not 16 man draws, though. It was 32 and he got a 1st round bye. Post 76, Dallas aside, I don't think he had many, if any at all. I didn't have time. When I do I'll do a real count. Still no way I see a third of his titles being that way. Big difference between 18 and 36. Not that 18 is insignificant. I won't dispute that.
 
Certainly timnz; in my point 4) I just wanted to say that twitter has a reason, and that is that many of Connors's titles are weak, ... but we must not forget that the american (like Mac, Borg and Lendl) also won other titles not sanctioned by ATP.

This means that surely some of the sanctioned ATP tournaments and some sanctioned tournaments are weak tournaments, but it does not seem correct to me to say that half of those ATPs won are poor, and also excludes all those not sanctioned. Comic film comes out.

Obviously a person reasons as he believes.
Many of the the titles were weak but don't forget that they still cost a lot of substance. Old time players could have won a lot more slams if they didn't skip slams and collected all their energy for slams and masters like the modern players do.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
The ironic thing is that Connors never beat Wilander in official play, but almost always beat Wilander in non-sanctioned tournaments. H2H for Connors against Becker is 0-6. One has to take into account that their very first match was when Connors was 34.
Yep. Six matches between 1986 and 1992.

Connors would have been nearing 40 at the last match in July 1992 in Indianapolis.
Between 1986-92 Becker was aged 19-25.

Clearly a generational mismatch.
 
Last edited:

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Yep. Six matches between 1986 and 1992.

Connors would have been nearing 40 at the last match in July 1992 in Indianapolis.
Between 1986-92 Becker was aged 19-25.

Clearly a generational mismatch.
Perhaps...some of them were interesting and very competitive. That Queen's final in '87 was a doozy. JC should have won that one. Boris was actually a big fan of Jimmy's, is my understanding. 2 very fiery guys squaring off!
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
The ironic thing is that Connors never beat Wilander in official play, but almost always beat Wilander in non-sanctioned tournaments. H2H for Connors against Becker is 0-6. One has to take into account that their very first match was when Connors was 34.
Yeah, the Wilander thing is weird. I remember watching an exo in '86 where JC absolutely smoked Mats on fast, indoor carpet. It was quite the ass-kicking and JC was 33 or 34yrs old. And in their first match on the seniors tour, on har tru, Connors beat him like 1 and 1, which was hard to fathom. Other than concluding that JC stayed very sharp while Mats clearly did not, having not played competitively for several years.
 

KG1965

Legend
The amusing part of this is there is a fair dose of core truth to Beareded Man's tweet. In the early years Connors was playing tons of tournaments where he was the only top 20 player and almost everyone else were basically nobodies. Some were way worse with no-one else in the top 50 playing - Roanoke 1973 for example. He was #10 and nobody else was ranked in the top 50 and the best-ranked person he played was #77.

And for an idea of the amount of tournaments he sometimes played - he often played 6 tournaments in Jan/Feb alone in some seasons.

Some tournaments he won were 4 person-draws and he still got a bye to the final (Roanoke - 1972). I'd hazard a guess that at least a third of his career tournament wins were at events with 16 person draws (or less). For Federer it's probably none, or less than a handful at worst.

Some notable examples of his titles. And this is a quick look, not a complete list by any means. Not until 1976 did he really have genuine, ongoing competition from similar-age peers. He had already amassed 41 titles by that stage and he was only 23 years old. At the same age Federer had 8 titles.

- 1974 Australian Open title - highest ranked player he played was #29. The others were 49, 90, 155, 195. (This makes Nadal's 2017 US Open look like a tough draw.)

- 1974 Salt Lake City title - highest ranked player he played was #135... the others were 155, 239.

- 1974 Manchester title (#2 at the time) - highest ranked player he played was #63. The others were 285 and unranked (Mike Collins whose career peak was #793).

- 1975 Bahamas - (#1 at the time) - highest ranked player #50. The others were 66, 150, 168.

- 1975 Boca Raton (#1 at the time) - highest ranked player #50. The others were, 66, 88, 103, 108

*just saying* - no need to be butthurt if you love Connors but comparing his and Federer's titles is not comparing apples with apples in a great many cases.
I believe that the content of your post and that of WCT is not very far from reality.
I think that what WCT stress post-early 1976 up to the end of his career actually is correct.
In the period after 1976 when the bad Riordan circuit ended, Connors overall won rare comparable Masters 250s (10 IMHO: Cologne 76, Stowe78-79, Tulsa and Hong Kong 79, Canton 80, Columbus 82, Toulose 88-89 and Tel Aviv 89).
Before 1976 instead the american has devoured an excessive amount of Masters 250 titles and some more "hideous" IMO.

We need to understand some things though:
1) how many Masters are 250;
2) how many are the titles that can be considered inferior to the Masters 250 but that ATP has deemed worthy.

On the point where I don't really agree with you, it's about "apples with apples". In the sense that, having established that the Fedr's titles have a greater weight than those of Connors, I believe that two aspects should also be considered:

1) in the event that Connors had not participated in the Riordan tournaments (so he would not have won 22 tournaments), he would have had to take part in the WCT and probably win some tournaments (between 8 and 15 ?).

2) How should non-sanctioned ATP tournaments be considered? Shouldn't be considered? Ok, but even in this case Jimmy would have participated in a ton of ATP tournaments and how many would have won?

I think it is correct to consider that in the 109 there are so many weak titles, trying to understand how many, but also that the circuit was in that period divided into several circuits, many many special events were played (not only Jimmy played them), the Australian Open was always bypassed by the top players (not just by Jimmy).
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
I'm trying to see how to measure the titles with the prize money (and therefore the points acquired by ATP that were always proportionate to the prize money).
Since 1976 I have been going backwards: in addition to Cologne, there are Birmingham and Hampton that have only 50.000.
There are many tournaments with lower prize money but I think that from 50,000.00 downwards they can be considered comparable Masters 250s.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
If I remember correctly ATP didn't consider the tournaments with Prize money <of $ 25,000, then of the 9 titles won in 1975, 7 are to be considered Masters 250:
50.000$ Nassau (Bahamas)
30.000$ Birmingham

50.000$ Salisbury
30.000$ Boca Raton
37.500$ Hampton
50.000$ Hamilton (Bermuda)

50.000$ Maui (Hawaii)

Some of these were certainly from the Riordan Tour (Birminghan, Salisbury, Hampton, Boca Raton), on Nassau I'm not sure.
Bermuda and Maui were disputed after the US Open, I don't think they were from the Riordan circuit.
Salisbury and Maui look like decent Masters 250 comparable, the others 5 look hideous.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
1974: 15 titles won, 8 are to be considered Masters 250:
20.000$ Roanoke
20.000$ Little Rock
25.000$ Birmingham

50.000$ Salisbury
35.000$ Hampton
17.500$ Salt Lake City
20.000$ Tempe
??????$ Manchester


Roanoke, Little Rock, Birminghan, Salisbury, Hampton, Salt Lake City and Tempe were part of the Riordan Tour.
Manchester no.
IMHO ATP did not award points to the tournaments of Roanoke, Little Rock, Salt Lake City, Tempe and Manchester.
Salisbury and Hampton are decent Masters 250 comparable, the other 6 are horrible.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
The substantial difference between 1975 and 1974 is that
- the comparable Masters 250 titles won in 1975 are rightly recognized by ATP by virtue of the fairly high prize money, with consequent attribution of points (even if some titles are bad for low competition)
- some of the comparable Masters 250 titles won in 1974 are taken into consideration by ATP although ATP has not considered them in the ranking. :rolleyes:
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
I looked at the site. Went through 1976 and I think I have counted 16. Some of them were not 16 man draws, though. It was 32 and he got a 1st round bye. Post 76, Dallas aside, I don't think he had many, if any at all. I didn't have time. When I do I'll do a real count. Still no way I see a third of his titles being that way. Big difference between 18 and 36. Not that 18 is insignificant. I won't dispute that.
"16 person draw" does not mean a 32 person draw with a bye. It means the draw was a 16 person draw which can accommodate up to 16 people. He played a stack of them, or smaller, early in his career.

Regardless of the numbers it's ****tons more than Federer and cannot be ignored when pondering whether 109 of Connor's average events is a greater thing than 100 of Federer's average events. Empirically there are notable differences.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
I think it's rather impossible to "solve" the worth of the 109 tourneys question, We are to down weight several of them AND exclude non-ATP sanctioned events? That seems like a stacked deck against JC. Many of those non-sanctioned events were few in participants but high in quality of players. I just think the era was so, so different from today that it's very tough to make a fair comparison. I would leave it at simply "freaking amazing that 2 guys got over 100 wins"
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
I think it's rather impossible to "solve" the worth of the 109 tourneys question, We are to down weight several of them AND exclude non-ATP sanctioned events? That seems like a stacked deck against JC. Many of those non-sanctioned events were few in participants but high in quality of players."
It's irrelevant as the non-sanctioned events aren't included in his 109 titles anyway. Neither are Federer's Laver Cups, Davis Cups or exos with Sampras, Nadal etc. Nor should they be.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
It's irrelevant as the non-sanctioned events aren't included in his 109 titles anyway. Neither are Federer's Laver Cups, Davis Cups or exos with Sampras, Nadal etc. Nor should they be.
Frankly, I've always had mixed feelings about that. Somewhere along the line, the ATP became the final arbiter over all things related to men's tennis. When through most of the 70's and some of the 80's there were competing tours and many "off tour" events. Remember the one Lendl used to play where the prize was a diamond tennis racket it was wild. I think that was in Antwerp.

Really, I would be fine w/including Laver Cups, World Cups and other such events for the current crop of players. Of course, then the complaint would be that there are FEWER of those events now than there used to be.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I think it's rather impossible to "solve" the worth of the 109 tourneys question, We are to down weight several of them AND exclude non-ATP sanctioned events? That seems like a stacked deck against JC. Many of those non-sanctioned events were few in participants but high in quality of players. I just think the era was so, so different from today that it's very tough to make a fair comparison. I would leave it at simply "freaking amazing that 2 guys got over 100 wins"
I generally agree with this. I think that the weakness of several of Connors' 109 official titles is balanced out by the fact that he won a lot of non-sanctioned events with tougher competition. I think therefore that the 109 count is not unrealistic.
 

WCT

Semi-Pro
I count 18 , but like I said, it's not all 16 man draws. 7 times he won a tournament with a 32 man draw, but got a 1st round bye. Hell, he had a bunch of of 1st round byes in 64 man draw tournaments that he won. He had a 1972 win in Roanoke where the field was 4 people and he got a bye in the first match. That was very strange.

I'm not going to compare the merits of Federer's wins vs his because I haven't followed Federer's entire tournament career the way I did most of Connors. Connors still won 90 or so regular tournaments against regular sized fields. Sure as hell not going to try to tell you that he was better than Federer, though.

Starting to count special events and exhibitions I see as a slippery slope. What do we count? Everything? One nighters and 4 mans as well? Where do you stop? That diamond racquet tournament you had to win it 3 of 5 years to get it. Not just once. But if memory serves it was worth several hundred grand.
 
Top